Asklemmy

43777 readers

1450 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Why is Marxism still a thing? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by Owell1984@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I was wondering why Marxism was still a thing and this placed seemed to be filled with Marxists. So, why? Didn't the fall of USSR teach us anything? Do today's Marxists think that USSR did something wrong? In other words, will they do anything different than the dictators of the soviet union? Also, some here seem to admire Stalin. I would really have to try hard to find a community that would admire Hitler but apparently admiring Stalin, another mass murder seems to be perfectly fine!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I agree, but that doesn't refute this answer in the context of the original question.

Stalin's reign (and other USSR leaders) objectively had many benefits to the people, despite its flaws, and the switch to a capitalist economy afterward has resulted in massive issues. Even thought that's only one interpretation of Marxism ("Marxist-Leninism"), that enough is a reason for many people to support it.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well that's the thing, I'm not sure blaming it all on capitalism is appropriate. Also, many of the claims are incorrect or misleading.

Life expectancy: this article traces the drop in life expectancy to before the collapse, and speculates that it was related to anti-alcohol abuse campaigns. The claim about 1991 is also a temporary one, since they have recovered life expectancy numbers.
Calories: This article seems to apply here. The metrics didn't look at food consumed, but rather production, imports, and exports. There's a shadow factor that comes into play. The Soviet Union had more spoilage than the US due to inferior storage facilities, so many of those calories went to waste instead of to waist. It's also a potatoes-to-beef comparison: the Soviet diet was much heavier in potatoes and grains, while the US could afford to raise cattle.
Nazi Germany: I don't want to diminish the losses suffered by the people of the Soviet Union during WW2, but to credit this contribution to communism ignores something incredibly important: the Lend-Lease Act. This underpinned much of the industrial capacity behind WW2, especially in the European theater where the US had limited presence. And while Soviet Russia played an outsized role, to say it "save the world from Nazi Germany" is nearly as bad as those who focus on the US to the exclusion of other countries.
Ended racial inequality: This is just not even wrong. There was significant state enforced mistreatment of many ethnic minorities, particularly under Stalin but extending to after his death.
Ended gender inequality: While history doesn't quite match this claim, they did make very significant strides towards gender equality.
zero homelessness: It was incomplete, and done in the clumsiest way possible. People were required to have a house, and just kinda shoveled into housing. Moving was made difficult by the requirement that citizens find a person to swap with. House hunting sucks when you're just trying to find the right house. Now imagine that you also have to find a person who wants your house, and the Internet isn't a thing yet.

This source does a direct rebuttal of three points from a green text version of this image. This image does not contain one of the claims, but the other two are:

Second fastest growing economy of 20th century (after Japan): Sounds pretty good, right? The problem is that the statistics were carefully manipulated. They picked a point in time where the Soviet Union was making rapid advancements by simply adopting technology invented by those dirty capitalists, often with the help of those capitalists. Growth slowed after that, but the statistics cut off in the 70's when the growth slowed but far before the USSR dissolved.
zero unemployment: This one uses funny math. The actual numbers are more or less in line with the US. The USSR also avoided publishing any reliable figures.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Good critique, I'll have a read of them. Thanks.

by simply adopting technology invented by those dirty capitalists

Well when 90% of the countries are capitalist, where do you expect most of the world's inventions to come from? Should they boycott most of the world over some meaningless idealism? That's like saying "NASA adopted technologies from the Nazis" (Operation Paperclip) as if that's a meaningful critique.

But it seems concerning that the places that invented those technologies weren't as effective in using them, shouldn't they have an advantage?

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

It was kind of a cheap jab, I admit. Still, my underlying point stands: their productivity gains were from adopting technology produced by others, so crediting them to communism at least needs a footnote. That's especially true because of how much growth leveled off when the easy gains stopped.

Also, the countries that invented tractors were plenty good at using them. Witness the US's endless seas of grains, corn, and other crops. Any food insecurity in the US (or the world, for that matter) is due to distribution, not abundance.